Verizon’s
so-called customer care staff made a grievous mistake when they ignored pleas
to override automated software that throttled California fire fighters’
broadband connections. See https://www.sccgov.org/sites/opa/newsroom/Pages/netneutralitylitigation.aspx?utm_campaign=Newsletters&utm_source=sendgrid&utm_medium=email. Understandably, network neutrality advocates
jumped at the opportunity to provide another example of unintended bad
consequences from the abandonment of open Internet regulatory safeguards. Similarly, network neutrality opponents properly
chided the company, but again championed a mostly unregulated Internet subject to
the consumer protections available from the Federal Trade Commission.
Both sides
miss the main lesson from this unfortunate situation: broadband networks have become
such important infrastructure that it makes absolutely no sense now to suggest
that industry self-regulation will remedy anything and everything, except for
the occasional privacy and data security issues which the FTC can handle.
Broadband
networks, particularly first and last mile access, are essential to effective firefighting
as it is for so many other areas of commerce, self-fulfillment, democracy,
governance, etc. Common carriage status would
recognize this importance. Bear in mind
that such a legal status does not require ventures to operate as monopolies, to
have market power, or to operate essential facilities. Landlords, hotel owners, competitive airlines
and even wireless carriers, currently operate as common carriers. Do not for a second buy the bogus assertion
that such status disincentivizes investment and blunts profitability. Also, no one can credibly claim that common
carrier oversight is “legacy” “utility” regulation, unjustified in this currently
competitive environment. Landlords, hotel owners, bus lines, car rental
companies, airlines, cable television systems, wireless carriers and a host of
other ventures currently comply with nondiscrimination and other common carrier
requirements.
On the
other hand, even common carriers can engage in price discrimination. Verizon most certainly did not violate common
carriage law and policy, or the FCC’s
2015 network neutrality rules, by offering different tiers of service (bit
rate, allowable monthly data consumption) at different price points.
That
Verizon could have dithered for even one hour on the matter of waiving data
rates for fight fighters provides a clear example that too much is at stake to
rely solely on the level of common sense and good business judgment of first
responding customer service representatives.
The FCC and the California Public Service Commission should have had
jurisdiction and the will to act immediately.
Who can
dispute this outcome?
